A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) permit marriage between death and burial when mourning laws should apply? The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between two separate aspects of aveilus: kavod hameis (honoring the deceased) and achrisu ki yomar (personal trauma/bitterness). This framework explains when Chazal can override mourning obligations.
This shiur analyzes the complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 4a regarding the special heter to marry when the groom's father dies during wedding preparations. The Gemara permits marriage between the death (misa) and burial (kevura), followed by shiva and then sheva brachos. Rabbi Zweig examines the major dispute between the Rif/Bahag (who permit this sequence in multiple cases) and the Rosh (who only permits postponing the wedding). The central difficulty is understanding how Chazal can override Torah (תורה)-level mourning laws. The Ran explains that sages can nullify shev v'al ta'aseh (passive obligations) but cannot permit violations of kum v'aseh (active prohibitions) like celebrating during mourning.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Kesubos 4a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
